11.29.2013

No one can doubt Gladwell’s ability to reach large audiences. The Tipping Point, Blink, and Outliers were all tremendous best-sellers, leading some to conclude that Gladwell has invented a new genre of popular writing. In David and Goliath,
Gladwell again applies the formula that has been so successful in the
past. Deploying a mixture of affecting narratives of struggle against
the odds with carefully chosen academic papers, he contends that the
powerless are more powerful than those who appear to wield much of the
power in the world. To many, this may appear counterintuitive, he
suggests; but by marshaling a variety of historical examples ranging
from the American struggle for civil rights to the Troubles in Northern
Ireland, leavened with homely tales of the trials and triumphs of
basketball teams and fortified with forays into sociology and
psychology, Gladwell thinks that he can persuade the reader to accept
the difficult truth that the weak are not as weak as the reader
imagines. If they play their cards right, they can prevail against the
strong.

Why
this should be thought a difficult view to accept is unclear. There is
nothing remotely challenging, for most of Gladwell’s readers, in this
story; it is the sort of uplift in which they already believe. The
dominant narrative for the last three centuries has been one in which
the power of elites and rulers is progressively overcome by the moral
force of the common man and woman who sticks up for what is right. Far
from being a forbidden truth, this is what everyone thinks. Here we can
glimpse one of the secrets of Gladwell’s success. Pretending to present
daringly counterintuitive views to his readers, he actually strengthens
the hold on them of a view of things that they have long taken for
granted. This is, perhaps, the essence of the genre that Gladwell has
pioneered: while reinforcing beliefs that everyone avows, he evokes in
the reader a satisfying sensation of intellectual non-conformity.

11.23.2013

The American public’s apparent compulsion to demonstrate “support for
our troops” in ways that are emotionally satisfying but ultimately
meaningless has been described
by Andrew Bacevich as the central tenet of our nation’s “civic
religion.” It has rightly been noted that the best way to support
soldiers, sailors, and Marines would be to bring them home. Bumper
sticker sentiments telling the guys and girls that we love them do the
opposite, permitting us to avoid any possible guilty conscience or
introspection over why young Americans are fighting and dying in a
seemingly interminable series of wars. Nowhere is the tendency towards
monetizing meaningless bromides about national security more evident
than in professional sports, particularly the National Football League.

The whole thing is worth reading. Articles like this leave me wondering how the status quo could ever change.

11.12.2013

11.07.2013

So it turns out health insurance will cost more for just about everyone. Seems like the plan is working just like it was designed! And now, for some deeper thoughts on Obamacare courtesy of James Caesar at First Things:

The debate over Obamacare is about
to take an ominous turn. Critics are quite correct to point out that the
cancellation of millions of insurance policies, apart from its being a breech
of trust from what the President promised, will result in many people being
forced to pay much larger premiums for what will sometimes be the same or
inferior coverage. Of course some will find better policies on the exchange, as
the President and Secretary Sebelius have argued, but many will not.

The utter indifference to these
losers is stunning. Even if it proves true that there are more winners than
losers, what kind of government, in a system based on individual rights, can
say to millions of people: too bad for you, you just have to pay more. The
sacrifice of some to a utilitarian calculation of (supposedly) more winners
than losers is at odds with the fundamentals of a society of law. It is no
different than a government, needing to pay for any program, simply picks at
random a set of citizens and makes them–and them alone–bear the full burden.
The willingness of some to accept this standard, to vaunt it, makes a mockery
of the rule of law. It is an appropriation of property. If Obamacare has costs,
the only way a lawful society should pay for it—assuming one favors it—is
through the general revenue, not by forcing some random subgroup to foot the
bill.

Critics today point to those who are
losing something; proponents boast of the many more who will gain. They are
both ignoring the real issue: the mere act of calculating the thing in this way
is a gross violation of the idea of the rule of law.

I have no doubt that there will be
those who gain—whether more than those who lose no one can now say. Once the
gainers get something and keep it for a time, any effort to divest them of it
will be regarded as imposing a special burden on them. Even a change will then
require a payment to them. What the politics of Obamacare portends is a result
in which more and more people believe that government has dealt with them in an
arbitrary and unjust way. This is no formula for creating social peace. The
damage to the rule of law is the greatest cost of this ill-advised measure.
Even if one thinks the goals are justified, the means are not.

The
debate over Obamacare is about to take an ominous turn. Critics are
quite correct to point out that the cancellation of millions of
insurance policies, apart from its being a breech of trust from what the
President promised, will result in many people being forced to pay much
larger premiums for what will sometimes be the same or inferior
coverage. Of course some will find better policies on the exchange, as
the President and Secretary Sebelius have argued, but many will not.
The utter indifference to these losers is stunning. Even if it proves
true that there are more winners than losers, what kind of government,
in a system based on individual rights, can say to millions of people:
too bad for you, you just have to pay more. The sacrifice of some to a
utilitarian calculation of (supposedly) more winners than losers is at
odds with the fundamentals of a society of law. It is no different than a
government, needing to pay for any program, simply picks at random a
set of citizens and makes them–and them alone–bear the full burden. The
willingness of some to accept this standard, to vaunt it, makes a
mockery of the rule of law. It is an appropriation of property. If
Obamacare has costs, the only way a lawful society should pay for
it—assuming one favors it—is through the general revenue, not by forcing
some random subgroup to foot the bill.
Critics today point to those who are losing something; proponents
boast of the many more who will gain. They are both ignoring the real
issue: the mere act of calculating the thing in this way is a gross
violation of the idea of the rule of law.
I have no doubt that there will be those who gain—whether more than
those who lose no one can now say. Once the gainers get something and
keep it for a time, any effort to divest them of it will be regarded as
imposing a special burden on them. Even a change will then require a
payment to them. What the politics of Obamacare portends is a result in
which more and more people believe that government has dealt with them
in an arbitrary and unjust way. This is no formula for creating social
peace. The damage to the rule of law is the greatest cost of this
ill-advised measure. Even if one thinks the goals are justified, the
means are not.
- See more at: http://www.firstthings.com/blogs/postmodernconservative/#sthash.MysmAKgL.dpuf

The
debate over Obamacare is about to take an ominous turn. Critics are
quite correct to point out that the cancellation of millions of
insurance policies, apart from its being a breech of trust from what the
President promised, will result in many people being forced to pay much
larger premiums for what will sometimes be the same or inferior
coverage. Of course some will find better policies on the exchange, as
the President and Secretary Sebelius have argued, but many will not.
The utter indifference to these losers is stunning. Even if it proves
true that there are more winners than losers, what kind of government,
in a system based on individual rights, can say to millions of people:
too bad for you, you just have to pay more. The sacrifice of some to a
utilitarian calculation of (supposedly) more winners than losers is at
odds with the fundamentals of a society of law. It is no different than a
government, needing to pay for any program, simply picks at random a
set of citizens and makes them–and them alone–bear the full burden. The
willingness of some to accept this standard, to vaunt it, makes a
mockery of the rule of law. It is an appropriation of property. If
Obamacare has costs, the only way a lawful society should pay for
it—assuming one favors it—is through the general revenue, not by forcing
some random subgroup to foot the bill.
Critics today point to those who are losing something; proponents
boast of the many more who will gain. They are both ignoring the real
issue: the mere act of calculating the thing in this way is a gross
violation of the idea of the rule of law.
I have no doubt that there will be those who gain—whether more than
those who lose no one can now say. Once the gainers get something and
keep it for a time, any effort to divest them of it will be regarded as
imposing a special burden on them. Even a change will then require a
payment to them. What the politics of Obamacare portends is a result in
which more and more people believe that government has dealt with them
in an arbitrary and unjust way. This is no formula for creating social
peace. The damage to the rule of law is the greatest cost of this
ill-advised measure. Even if one thinks the goals are justified, the
means are not.
- See more at: http://www.firstthings.com/blogs/postmodernconservative/#sthash.MysmAKgL.dpuf

The
debate over Obamacare is about to take an ominous turn. Critics are
quite correct to point out that the cancellation of millions of
insurance policies, apart from its being a breech of trust from what the
President promised, will result in many people being forced to pay much
larger premiums for what will sometimes be the same or inferior
coverage. Of course some will find better policies on the exchange, as
the President and Secretary Sebelius have argued, but many will not.
The utter indifference to these losers is stunning. Even if it proves
true that there are more winners than losers, what kind of government,
in a system based on individual rights, can say to millions of people:
too bad for you, you just have to pay more. The sacrifice of some to a
utilitarian calculation of (supposedly) more winners than losers is at
odds with the fundamentals of a society of law. It is no different than a
government, needing to pay for any program, simply picks at random a
set of citizens and makes them–and them alone–bear the full burden. The
willingness of some to accept this standard, to vaunt it, makes a
mockery of the rule of law. It is an appropriation of property. If
Obamacare has costs, the only way a lawful society should pay for
it—assuming one favors it—is through the general revenue, not by forcing
some random subgroup to foot the bill.
Critics today point to those who are losing something; proponents
boast of the many more who will gain. They are both ignoring the real
issue: the mere act of calculating the thing in this way is a gross
violation of the idea of the rule of law.
I have no doubt that there will be those who gain—whether more than
those who lose no one can now say. Once the gainers get something and
keep it for a time, any effort to divest them of it will be regarded as
imposing a special burden on them. Even a change will then require a
payment to them. What the politics of Obamacare portends is a result in
which more and more people believe that government has dealt with them
in an arbitrary and unjust way. This is no formula for creating social
peace. The damage to the rule of law is the greatest cost of this
ill-advised measure. Even if one thinks the goals are justified, the
means are not.
- See more at: http://www.firstthings.com/blogs/postmodernconservative/#sthash.MysmAKgL.dpuf

The
debate over Obamacare is about to take an ominous turn. Critics are
quite correct to point out that the cancellation of millions of
insurance policies, apart from its being a breech of trust from what the
President promised, will result in many people being forced to pay much
larger premiums for what will sometimes be the same or inferior
coverage. Of course some will find better policies on the exchange, as
the President and Secretary Sebelius have argued, but many will not.
The utter indifference to these losers is stunning. Even if it proves
true that there are more winners than losers, what kind of government,
in a system based on individual rights, can say to millions of people:
too bad for you, you just have to pay more. The sacrifice of some to a
utilitarian calculation of (supposedly) more winners than losers is at
odds with the fundamentals of a society of law. It is no different than a
government, needing to pay for any program, simply picks at random a
set of citizens and makes them–and them alone–bear the full burden. The
willingness of some to accept this standard, to vaunt it, makes a
mockery of the rule of law. It is an appropriation of property. If
Obamacare has costs, the only way a lawful society should pay for
it—assuming one favors it—is through the general revenue, not by forcing
some random subgroup to foot the bill.
Critics today point to those who are losing something; proponents
boast of the many more who will gain. They are both ignoring the real
issue: the mere act of calculating the thing in this way is a gross
violation of the idea of the rule of law.
I have no doubt that there will be those who gain—whether more than
those who lose no one can now say. Once the gainers get something and
keep it for a time, any effort to divest them of it will be regarded as
imposing a special burden on them. Even a change will then require a
payment to them. What the politics of Obamacare portends is a result in
which more and more people believe that government has dealt with them
in an arbitrary and unjust way. This is no formula for creating social
peace. The damage to the rule of law is the greatest cost of this
ill-advised measure. Even if one thinks the goals are justified, the
means are not.
- See more at: http://www.firstthings.com/blogs/postmodernconservative/#sthash.MysmAKgL.dpuf

The
debate over Obamacare is about to take an ominous turn. Critics are
quite correct to point out that the cancellation of millions of
insurance policies, apart from its being a breech of trust from what the
President promised, will result in many people being forced to pay much
larger premiums for what will sometimes be the same or inferior
coverage. Of course some will find better policies on the exchange, as
the President and Secretary Sebelius have argued, but many will not.
The utter indifference to these losers is stunning. Even if it proves
true that there are more winners than losers, what kind of government,
in a system based on individual rights, can say to millions of people:
too bad for you, you just have to pay more. The sacrifice of some to a
utilitarian calculation of (supposedly) more winners than losers is at
odds with the fundamentals of a society of law. It is no different than a
government, needing to pay for any program, simply picks at random a
set of citizens and makes them–and them alone–bear the full burden. The
willingness of some to accept this standard, to vaunt it, makes a
mockery of the rule of law. It is an appropriation of property. If
Obamacare has costs, the only way a lawful society should pay for
it—assuming one favors it—is through the general revenue, not by forcing
some random subgroup to foot the bill.
Critics today point to those who are losing something; proponents
boast of the many more who will gain. They are both ignoring the real
issue: the mere act of calculating the thing in this way is a gross
violation of the idea of the rule of law.
I have no doubt that there will be those who gain—whether more than
those who lose no one can now say. Once the gainers get something and
keep it for a time, any effort to divest them of it will be regarded as
imposing a special burden on them. Even a change will then require a
payment to them. What the politics of Obamacare portends is a result in
which more and more people believe that government has dealt with them
in an arbitrary and unjust way. This is no formula for creating social
peace. The damage to the rule of law is the greatest cost of this
ill-advised measure. Even if one thinks the goals are justified, the
means are not.
- See more at: http://www.firstthings.com/blogs/postmodernconservative/#sthash.MysmAKgL.dpuf

Pretentious Precepts

"First Things means, first, that the first thing to be said about public life is that public life is not the first thing. First Things means, second, that there are first things, in the sense of first principles, for the right ordering of public life."

“A free society cannot survive if we are so free that nothing is expected of us.”